If I had seen these problems with the seminary sooner, I would've decided against going awhile before I did. I probably wouldn't have wasted a year of my life

Actually, when I was there I was not very impressed with Caleb.  He seemed just as willing to play politics as the next guy. 

Apparently, moving on to the true position regarding the papal situation fixed Caleb up well in other areas. It's what it does.

It seems to me that you are implying that when one embraces the "sacred" sede position, it covers a multitude of sins...  rubbish!

I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you'll want to go to the appropriate sub-forum and explain.

Pfeiffer might try reaching out to Fr. Voigt with the $20,000 he still owes him.  I don't think that loan has been repaid, and I think Fr. V. is telling the truth about the situation.

.
Why would a priest lie about such a thing? But he could settle any question by making the NOTE public. That is, unless he doesn't have any note. That complicates matters.

I am still waiting for an honest answer as to why Bishop Williamson used Fr Gruner and the Fatima Center as a forum to bash Fr Pfeiffer and present Fr Zendejas as this poor persecuted priest when it was Fr Z who misled Fr P over the New England Mass center.  

Would you clarify how the Bishop used the Fatima Center, please?

the Bishop Williamson Fan club, but we'll strap on those helmets and, for the glory of Our Lady and the good fight, here we go...

First off, I deal with facts, and try to give criticism where it is due.  I have never been a part of anybody's fan club, and don't look to any group or person as having dealt effectively with the present apostasy.

Now, so far as I know, the then Fr Zendejas made an agreement with Fr Pfeiffer to man the New England chapel and then he was going to do a circuit to Resistance chapels in the area.  Fr P had already done the legwork to set up those chapels and times and etc.  But Fr Z went rogue, organized a bunch of people who knew him from when he was at Ridgefield [I went on retreat there when he was prior, and we had some good talks, and saw 100% eye to eye.  (This was back in 2006 or thereabouts, when you could see the cracks in the SSPX but it had not broke apart yet.)]  I know for a fact that Fr Z was a latecomer to the Resistance, and that Fr P and Fr Chavez were the pioneers back in the Pacific rim when they were locked out of the SSPX for their criticism of the SSPX party line.  Fr P came to the US and Boston and, after a period of convalescence, took on the mammoth work of organizing and servicing the USA Resistance.  So, you basically have Fr Z agreeing with Fr P, then reneging, and deciding to do his own thing.  That is fine as far as it goes.  But then he should have set up his own chapel on his own terms.

Enter Bishop W.  It was in Nov 2014 while we are coming back from a Chicago excursion that We're listening to this podcast from Canada where Bishop W is defending "poor Fr Z" from the evil Fr P.  Now I would not have a problem with that either, except that apparently Bishop W made no attempt to arrange for Fr Z and Fr P to sit down and talk face to face and iron out all their differences and bring all grievances to the fore, so to speak.  After all, that is how I used to sort out disputes at the steakhouse.  Employee X would tell one version, Employee Y another, factions would form, and I would be in the middle of it.  Well, I found out the way to nip misconceptions and skulduggery in the bud was to sit everybody down with the witnesses and get to the facts.  It just seems to me that Bishop W, rather than honestly seeking peace, sometimes enjoys stirring the pot.

Why doesn't Bishop W take his big guns in Eleison Comments and discuss the problems in Kentucky, beginning with the #1 scandal of Pablo the Mexican being too intimate with a married woman and her children, and that woman living apart from her husband for reasons I can't fathom (I know this woman from another SSPX venue, and perhaps at some point her name will have to be dragged through all this, but I am not going to do it here or now because this is not about juicy gossip...).  That I think is his job.  Like Fred the lion, he knew the job was dangerous when he took it, an leadership has consequences...

Same thing with Fr Chazel.  Why can't he come out and say he has formally broken with Fr P because of the Pablo debacle, rather than quietly distancing himself and letting the faithful know through osmosis.  

Now I will elaborate about Fr Voight.  (Pardon my lousy spelling.)  The climax to the whole Pablo affair was May 2015 after Dr Senele left to return to India and get ordained.  Apparently Fr V and Pablo had a fight over who was going to be "chief in charge" during Fr P's trip to the Philippines.  Pablo threw a big hissy fit and said he was not going to cook.  So Fr V said fine, had the seminarians cooking (which was sometimes quite the penance.  Imagine digging all day and coming in to one of Paulo's Medi dishes of 7 types of peppers and 11 types of beans...) and Pablo in exile across the way.  But things were just going to well, and Pablo ordered one of the seminarians to break into the rectory, and would not let me explain the situation to Fr P over the phone.  And Fr V assure all of us that when Fr P and Fr Hewko got back, Fr V and Fr H were going to confront Fr P over Pablo.  Well, that never happened, and for most of the seminarians I think that was the final disillusionment.  (I also think Paulo was a "plant" who was giving information to Argentina about Boston that was then alluded to in other newsletters, as well as spreading rumors about animal sacrifices and that nonsense.)

In summation, a lot of "Trads" out there seem to have forgotten all about that part of the Gospel where we will have to give an account for every idle word, and let your speech be yes, yes and no, no.  I for one did not enjoy Bishop Fellay's circuмspections when it came to discussions that we were assured were not negotiations that suddenly became negotiations but with the assurance that not one jot or tittle of  Archbishop L's policies would be comprised to... train wreck.  And now I see the same thing happening in the "Resistance" where various parties are trying to minimize their sins while maximizing select offenses of others.

How 'bout we start building monasteries and seminaries and communities and stop with all the roundtable bashing.  If any of you out there are in need of a cook or janitor or ditch-digger or just need somebody to drive the Zamboni or the Mog, just let me know.